What are the reasonable limits of freedom of expression?

[Nexus of All Realities]

Violence, sedition, libel, slander, defamation (I forgot which of the last three is which), treason and insurrection and incitements thereof.

ONCE again, this nation was built on insurrection(s).

[Lexicor]

Andrew Breitbart:

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[St Ronan]

The only limits should be violence. Everyone has right to voice their own opinion, no matter how unpopular.

[Telconi]

Direct, specific, inciting of violence. Everything else should fall under freedom of expression.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The moment someone threatens the social order, they should be silenced.

I feel there are a lot of exceptions to this rule.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Violence, sedition, libel, slander, defamation (I forgot which of the last three is which), treason and insurrection and incitements thereof.

ONCE again, this nation was built on insurrection(s).

So?

[Sovaal]

Really, as long as it's done woth onsenting adults, respects property, and doesn't put people in danger, it's a-ok in my book.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

Violence, sedition, libel, slander, defamation (I forgot which of the last three is which), treason and insurrection and incitements thereof.

ONCE again, this nation was built on insurrection(s).

"insurrection should be legal" is an idea that belongs in the tomb with the anarchist, confederate and other rebel scum who advocated it.

[Liberated Territories]

No limits outside of a private setting, except when freedom of expression is accompanied with violence or threat thereof.

[Ever Victorious Iron Willed Commanders]

ONCE again, this nation was built on insurrection(s).

"insurrection should be legal" is an idea that belongs in the tomb with the anarchist, confederate and other rebel scum who advocated it.

Insurrection should only be legal when the government becomes dictatorial; actually infringing on your rights (not threatening to ban slavery); etc.

[The War World of Krieg]

Freedom of expression is non negotiable, either you have it or you don't it's as simple as that, there is no you can't do this certain thing because it's "hate speech", if we don't respect each others rights then what's the point in claiming we have such things as "freedom of expression".

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

"insurrection should be legal" is an idea that belongs in the tomb with the anarchist, confederate and other rebel scum who advocated it.

Insurrection should only be legal when the government becomes dictatorial; actually infringing on your rights (not threatening to ban slavery); etc.

I'd rather keep it vague and not attempt to codify it. Violence is a tool that should only be rarely used- the condition you provide is to an extent an acceptable justification for it but all the same, the crafty scumbags who seek to foment insurgency must be kept from gaining more weapons to use against the stability of their nations and the world than our own humanity hands them.

[Laeden]

Gentlemen, the very purpose of Freedom of Speech is to allow people to speak what nobody wants to hear. If we limit this liberty to the point that no one can come up with an inconvenient truth, even if we do so under the justification of fighting hate speech, we'll be severely restricting our freedom.
Basically, if everyone says the same stuff or if the law is used to restrict the political discourse, we're not really that free. At all.

[Badger Industries]

I think the American constitution has a pretty good take on the issue in saying that speech that constitutes as "fighting words" is not protected as free speech. Basically anything that incites violence, whether it be upon an individual or groups, and regardless of its severity, is not protected as freedom of expression. There are also appropriate laws limiting another's usage of personal information or property. In this way we maintain a suitable level of free speech as long as it is not physically harmful to anyone else.

[Nexus of All Realities]

Jerking off in front of a school.

Do you have something you'd like to share with us, Mike?

In all seriousness, I'd say inciting/taking part in violence, as several people have already said. The line should be drawn there. Or arguing that Creed is solid rock music, that should also be illegal.

Or that any music made after 1995 had any merit at all.

Back on topic for me. I don't want trouble with Lady Godzilla, or anybody else.

[Nexus of All Realities]

"insurrection should be legal" is an idea that belongs in the tomb with the anarchist, confederate and other rebel scum who advocated it.

Insurrection should only be legal when the government becomes dictatorial; actually infringing on your rights ..

Had been, isn't so much now. Oh, wait, Congress.

[Len Hyet]

Do you have something you'd like to share with us, Mike?

In all seriousness, I'd say inciting/taking part in violence, as several people have already said. The line should be drawn there. Or arguing that Creed is solid rock music, that should also be illegal.

Or that any music made after 1995 had any merit at all.

Black Ice came out in 2008 you heathen

[Nexus of All Realities]

Or that any music made after 1995 had any merit at all.

Black Ice came out in 2008 you heathen

Bwa?

[Len Hyet]

Black Ice came out in 2008 you heathen

Bwa?

Black Ice. AC/DC album. Some great songs on it.